JSeahawks wrote:So we should just have no rules because officials make mistakes? This rule seems much easier and obvious to call/or not call then holding or pass interference.

Let me ask you a question: what if this rule had been in effect last year and a flag had been thrown on Lynch's TD run against the 49ers because he knocked helmets with Goldson on the way into the end zone? How would you feel about the rule then?.

I'd be fine with it. Bad calls happen. Move on to the next play. I've never been one to complain about officiating.

Well, I'm glad to hear that, because we are going to get burned by more than a few bad calls because of this rule.

It should be pretty simple for the refs to see if, outside the tackle box, in a one on one situation, the runner lowers his head and spears the defensive opponent with the crown of his helmet. Much easier to call than a helmet to helmet on a defenseless receiver IMO. I'm sure there'll be instances of it being called incorrectly, but I highly doubt it's going to have a serious, negative impact on the game. People just love to have a freak out.

Shadowhawk wrote:[quote="JSeahawks"]So we should just have no rules because officials make mistakes? This rule seems much easier and obvious to call/or not call then holding or pass interference.

Let me ask you a question: what if this rule had been in effect last year and a flag had been thrown on Lynch's TD run against the 49ers because he knocked helmets with Goldson on the way into the end zone? How would you feel about the rule then?.

I'd be fine with it. Bad calls happen. Move on to the next play. I've never been one to complain about officiating.

Well, I'm glad to hear that, because we are going to get burned by more than a few bad calls because of this rule.[/quote]

JSeahawks wrote:[quote="Shadowhawk"][quote="JSeahawks"]So we should just have no rules because officials make mistakes? This rule seems much easier and obvious to call/or not call then holding or pass interference.

Let me ask you a question: what if this rule had been in effect last year and a flag had been thrown on Lynch's TD run against the 49ers because he knocked helmets with Goldson on the way into the end zone? How would you feel about the rule then?.

I'd be fine with it. Bad calls happen. Move on to the next play. I've never been one to complain about officiating.

Well, I'm glad to hear that, because we are going to get burned by more than a few bad calls because of this rule.[/quote]

So will other teams. Bad calls even out over time[/quote]

Yes, but the league should be taking steps to limit bad calls, not implement rules that will increase the number of bad calls even if all of the teams get equally screwed.

Shadowhawk wrote:[quote="JSeahawks"][quote="Shadowhawk"][quote="JSeahawks"]So we should just have no rules because officials make mistakes? This rule seems much easier and obvious to call/or not call then holding or pass interference.

Let me ask you a question: what if this rule had been in effect last year and a flag had been thrown on Lynch's TD run against the 49ers because he knocked helmets with Goldson on the way into the end zone? How would you feel about the rule then?.

I'd be fine with it. Bad calls happen. Move on to the next play. I've never been one to complain about officiating.

Well, I'm glad to hear that, because we are going to get burned by more than a few bad calls because of this rule.[/quote]

So will other teams. Bad calls even out over time[/quote]

Yes, but the league should be taking steps to limit bad calls, not implement rules that will increase the number of bad calls even if all of the teams get equally screwed.[/quote]

Not necessarily, if a greater need outweighs the need to minimize erroneous penalties. The particular contact prohibited in this rule is particularly dangerous and potentially catastrophic, and is a good way to become quadriplegic. If you don't buy the safety angle, then think in terms of money : failing to ban it leaves the nfl open to lawsuits on the subject when someone gets hurt.

jkitsune wrote:Not necessarily, if a greater need outweighs the need to minimize erroneous penalties. The particular contact prohibited in this rule is particularly dangerous and potentially catastrophic, and is a good way to become quadriplegic. If you don't buy the safety angle, then think in terms of money : failing to ban it leaves the nfl open to lawsuits on the subject when someone gets hurt.

I know the physics of what happens when you take a hard enough blow straight down from the crown of your head, but I would argue that this rule actually has a detrimental effect on player safety. How many football players have been paralyzed due to hitting someone with the crown of his helmet? I can think of three: Dennis Byrd in 1992, Curtis Williams in 2000, and Eric LeGrand in 2010. (Mike Utley broke his neck in 1991 but that was due to an awkward fall after a missed block, not hitting someone with the crown of his helmet.) I don't minimize or make light of those incidents, but that is three cases in years, decades worth of seasons, games and hits.

On the other hand, this rule negatively impacts player safety in regards to the lower body. First, if backs are focusing on keeping their heads up, they are going to run higher as a result. That leaves their lower bodies more vulnerable. Since defenders are going to try to go low on ball carriers for reasons of leverage, if the ball carrier is running higher that means defenders are going to have a clear shot at their legs. Knee injuries are already frighteningly common and if running backs can't go low to protect themselves, we're going to see more knee injuries as a result. (And I know that Jeff Fisher and others came out and said that backs would be able to go low to protect themselves without a penalty, but it's going to get called.)

Dennis Byrd's example as mentioned above is illustrative because he did not intend to lead with the crown of his helmet on the play when he was paralyzed. In his autobiography, he says that he held his head up until the last second, but when he saw teammate Scott Mersereau coming at him he instinctively ducked. Even if backs focus on keeping their heads up, there are situations when they will duck their heads because of pure instinct. So there is no way this rule change will eliminate hits with the crown of the helmet.

This is a rule that looks good on paper but is going to prove to be very bad in real life. It's not going to keep players from leading with the crown of their helmets and it's going to lead to an increase in knee and other lower body injuries.

Fudwamper wrote:My personal opinion is that there is an outrage because most people don't understand the rule and are ignorant on the subject.

Actually, I think most people understand the subject and the rule very clearly. They just don't think this is something that officials will be able to call effectively and anticipate a lot of penalties called incorrectly on plays that are still legal, just like we see every week with roughing the passer penalties and hits on defenseless receivers.

THIS is the take I can get behind. Well said. Whether it's the "most" people or just the loudest, I think Fud might be referring to the ones who say "ruining the game" without any elaboration, or the ones with the "two-hand touch" snippy comments and that's it. I don't get that argument, because that's the way I was taught to play – to keep your crown clean and learn how to use everything else (shoulders, forearms, hands, even facemask) to get it done.

But officials' subjectivity is probably the only thing I don't like about the game, so I can see the ire for bringing in a new subjective rule. It's all going to be in the application. IF, like some people say, this is all because of lawsuits and PR, then maybe it will be enough just to have the rule on the books and refs will be told to use that ruling very sparingly. On the other hand, they might try to make an example out of some guys early and get carried away with it. The behind-the-scenes emphasis that the league delivers to the officials will determine how prevalent it is.

That is what I was getting at. It is an easy call to make. Lower your head in a spearing fashion coming through the line at a safety or DB and get called for spearing. Really that is all this rule is doing. Enforcing offensive spearing.

"If we lose ... this place will be a Carnival of Stupidity." FlyingGreg

I like the rule. Player safety is important. I know people are worried about the definition of contact sports and the entertainment value. Eventually the player has through live through suffering from brain disease or other life long injuries where there is no fan there to help. Not all players make millions and given the Market everyone wants younger players. Once you age you keep suffering. No one deserves a life like that just for a moment of fame. Commonsensical rules that protect players from neck and head injuries needs to be in place. That's my strong opinion. All teams will have to abide by them, so they will all adapt. The argument that it will be called wrongly can happen to both teams, so doesn't make sense to be upset?

jkitsune wrote:Not necessarily, if a greater need outweighs the need to minimize erroneous penalties. The particular contact prohibited in this rule is particularly dangerous and potentially catastrophic, and is a good way to become quadriplegic. If you don't buy the safety angle, then think in terms of money : failing to ban it leaves the nfl open to lawsuits on the subject when someone gets hurt.

I know the physics of what happens when you take a hard enough blow straight down from the crown of your head, but I would argue that this rule actually has a detrimental effect on player safety. How many football players have been paralyzed due to hitting someone with the crown of his helmet? I can think of three: Dennis Byrd in 1992, Curtis Williams in 2000, and Eric LeGrand in 2010. (Mike Utley broke his neck in 1991 but that was due to an awkward fall after a missed block, not hitting someone with the crown of his helmet.) I don't minimize or make light of those incidents, but that is three cases in years, decades worth of seasons, games and hits.

On the other hand, this rule negatively impacts player safety in regards to the lower body. First, if backs are focusing on keeping their heads up, they are going to run higher as a result. That leaves their lower bodies more vulnerable. Since defenders are going to try to go low on ball carriers for reasons of leverage, if the ball carrier is running higher that means defenders are going to have a clear shot at their legs. Knee injuries are already frighteningly common and if running backs can't go low to protect themselves, we're going to see more knee injuries as a result. (And I know that Jeff Fisher and others came out and said that backs would be able to go low to protect themselves without a penalty, but it's going to get called.)

Dennis Byrd's example as mentioned above is illustrative because he did not intend to lead with the crown of his helmet on the play when he was paralyzed. In his autobiography, he says that he held his head up until the last second, but when he saw teammate Scott Mersereau coming at him he instinctively ducked. Even if backs focus on keeping their heads up, there are situations when they will duck their heads because of pure instinct. So there is no way this rule change will eliminate hits with the crown of the helmet.

This is a rule that looks good on paper but is going to prove to be very bad in real life. It's not going to keep players from leading with the crown of their helmets and it's going to lead to an increase in knee and other lower body injuries.

Well, it will also get rid of that other thing the NFL is being sued for and people have killed themselves over and that's some weird thing called a concussion. I'd sure hate to see Lynch get a concussion because he led with the crown of his head. Granted it was another game back in the day, but Herman Edwards did state that Jim Brown rarely if ever led with his head. Not to mention there were practically no rules in the game around that time I mean the horse collar was still in effect, but good luck doing that to Jim Brown and see if it works lol. I don't like the rule either, but I'd rather have a healthy Marshawn Lynch get hurt with a knee injury than a Head injury which I don't mean to be rude but it seems that's what you'd prefer over a Knee other lower body injury?

Even if Lynch suffers a horrible ACL, MCL or LCL injury Adrian Peterson showed you can come back from that; although I'm not foolish to think that everyone's comeback would be like his.

It's all going to come down to how the league tells the refs to emphasize the call. With the defenseless receiver rule the refs are told to err on the side of throwing the flag. Now if you believe Jeff Fisher, which I'm fairly inclined to do personally, this rule will be emphasized the opposite. The refs will be told to err on the side of letting the players play. I tend to go with what Sando surmised and say that this is a penalty that is called more often in the film room by the league than it is on game day by the officials. I forsee some fines being handed down but relatively few yellow flags on the ground.

The scary part about this rule is the PENALTY for it. Now if it was just a basic 15 yd i would not be that scared. But do you guys realize, that if on 3rd and 10 from the 20 Lynch makes a 40 yd run all the way to the opposing 40 and gets flagged for this at the end EVERYTHING is ERASED and on top of that there is 15 yd from the line of scrimmage. so we eould end up having 3rd and 25 from our own 5yd line instead. The potential for us (or yeah okay other teams to) to get absolutley SCREWED by this rule is ENORMOUS. cant you easily se the hawks getting into field goal range at on a beautiful play at the end of a playoff game, and then a laaaate flag comes up.... if it was just 15 yd from ther spot and you still get a first down i would be fine with it, but this becomes like an extra "holding" but waaaay down the field.. meaning we as fans can never feel safe EVER cause there are so many ticky tack ways that we COULD get screwed

Swedishhawkfan wrote:The scary part about this rule is the PENALTY for it. Now if it was just a basic 15 yd i would not be that scared. But do you guys realize, that if on 3rd and 10 from the 20 Lynch makes a 40 yd run all the way to the opposing 40 and gets flagged for this at the end EVERYTHING is ERASED and on top of that there is 15 yd from the line of scrimmage. so we eould end up having 3rd and 25 from our own 5yd line instead. The potential for us (or yeah okay other teams to) to get absolutley SCREWED by this rule is ENORMOUS. cant you easily se the hawks getting into field goal range at on a beautiful play at the end of a playoff game, and then a laaaate flag comes up.... if it was just 15 yd from ther spot and you still get a first down i would be fine with it, but this becomes like an extra "holding" but waaaay down the field.. meaning we as fans can never feel safe EVER cause there are so many ticky tack ways that we COULD get screwed

According to the new VP of Officiating's interview on NFL Network its spot of the foul - 15 yards not return to the line of scrimmage -15 yards. Basically as costly as a personal foul after a run. Not that I especially like the new rule.

Lady Talon wrote:According to the new VP of Officiating's interview on NFL Network its spot of the foul - 15 yards not return to the line of scrimmage -15 yards. Basically as costly as a personal foul after a run. Not that I especially like the new rule.

15 yards from the spot of the foul?I mean, if AP runs outside the tackles, spears a guy at the 40 yard line then has a free run to a TD they have to call it back surely?

jkitsune wrote:Not necessarily, if a greater need outweighs the need to minimize erroneous penalties. The particular contact prohibited in this rule is particularly dangerous and potentially catastrophic, and is a good way to become quadriplegic. If you don't buy the safety angle, then think in terms of money : failing to ban it leaves the nfl open to lawsuits on the subject when someone gets hurt.

I know the physics of what happens when you take a hard enough blow straight down from the crown of your head, but I would argue that this rule actually has a detrimental effect on player safety. How many football players have been paralyzed due to hitting someone with the crown of his helmet? I can think of three: Dennis Byrd in 1992, Curtis Williams in 2000, and Eric LeGrand in 2010. (Mike Utley broke his neck in 1991 but that was due to an awkward fall after a missed block, not hitting someone with the crown of his helmet.) I don't minimize or make light of those incidents, but that is three cases in years, decades worth of seasons, games and hits.

On the other hand, this rule negatively impacts player safety in regards to the lower body. First, if backs are focusing on keeping their heads up, they are going to run higher as a result. That leaves their lower bodies more vulnerable. Since defenders are going to try to go low on ball carriers for reasons of leverage, if the ball carrier is running higher that means defenders are going to have a clear shot at their legs. Knee injuries are already frighteningly common and if running backs can't go low to protect themselves, we're going to see more knee injuries as a result. (And I know that Jeff Fisher and others came out and said that backs would be able to go low to protect themselves without a penalty, but it's going to get called.)

Dennis Byrd's example as mentioned above is illustrative because he did not intend to lead with the crown of his helmet on the play when he was paralyzed. In his autobiography, he says that he held his head up until the last second, but when he saw teammate Scott Mersereau coming at him he instinctively ducked. Even if backs focus on keeping their heads up, there are situations when they will duck their heads because of pure instinct. So there is no way this rule change will eliminate hits with the crown of the helmet.

This is a rule that looks good on paper but is going to prove to be very bad in real life. It's not going to keep players from leading with the crown of their helmets and it's going to lead to an increase in knee and other lower body injuries.

Very well-reasoned reply. I suppose we'll have to see how it plays out in real life. I suspect the impact of the rule is going to be less dramatic than you suggest, but I definitely see your reasoning.

This offensive spearing rule is actually already in place in high school (NFHS rules) and most youth leagues adopt it as well. As a referee and coach, I've seen many cases of running backs absolutely demolishing defenders - clearly using their helmets as weapons. There is a fine line between "ducking", "lowering the shoulder", "getting small", etc... and taking on a would-be tackler with nothing but your helmet.

I don't think refs, coaches, and players are going to have hard time with the new rule as long as they equally educated about legal moves at the same time. As far as fans go, you'll get the usual complaints of taking the toughness out of football but this is one rule that has the potential to save the health of all players. Personally, I dislike all of the "safety" rules that are tailored to certain positions (QB's come to mind). On the other hand, this is one that has both the runner and the defender's safety in mind.

One of the funniest coaching meltdowns I have ever seen on a football field was when a kid (10 yrs old) had two long touchdowns in a row called back for using helmet as a weapon. After the 2nd time, the coach went nuclear on the ref who called it and the situation didn't get much better when the ref told him he'd call it every time and if it happened it again he was going to be inclined to eject the kid from play if he continued. Most youth coaches are so used to Sunday football rules and most are very surprised when informed of the real HS rules.

It is nice to see more consistency across all levels of play, especially when it comes to safety issues. We all know that kids see the pros play a certain way and try to emulate those actions.

We need to take these type of subjective ref calls OUT of the game, not put more in. Why not just fine the running backs for leading with their head plays after the fact? Why are we creating scenarios where the refs are making judgement calls that will cost penalty yards and decide game outcomes?

It seems those pending lawsuits are the root cause the Owners are willing to do almost anything to avoid these potential multimillion dollar payouts . To bad because there ruining the game in the process. Goodell is the worst thing to happen to profootball ever.